9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. Syiem, Member (T)]. - The learned Counsel for M/s. Tinplate Co., Mr. Mookherjee, said that this appeal is a non-existent one, because when the order of the Collector (Appeals) was passed in 1981, there was no provision for appeal to this Tribunal in line with Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The department filed the appeal in January, 1983 against the order, even tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument, then even orders passed on the 1st of October, 1982 cannot be taken in appeal to the Tribunal, because on that day, the Tribunal had not yet started to function, and, therefore, the remedy of appeal to it had not been conferred on any aggrieved person. The question then would arise where would a person go against an order passed on the 1st of October, 1982 by the Appellate Collector? Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed when before the appointed day; only that the order should be passed before the appointed day. Evidently, if the order was passed more than six months before the date of filing the appeal, it would be time barred. Another appeal filed within, say, five months would have been time barred, but can be saved by this Removal of Difficulties Order. 5. The present appeal was filed in January, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. - This is an instance regarding an order passed anterior to the appointed day (11-10-1982) and passed under Section 35 of the Act (as it stood immediately before that day), by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. The order was admittedly passed before six months of the appointed day. Though, I have my own reservations about the views expressed by my learned brother in paragraphs 3 4, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
